Obama to Israel: I got your back!

[Wiseacre]

If you were Israel, would you believe it? Do we believe the Obama of the last 3 years that snubbed and dissed the Israeli PM, or the election year Obama who is now trying to make nice with everybody? If Obama gets re-elected, will he do anything different from what we've already seen?

I don't think so, I think he'll let Iran develop their nukes; and if they one day set one off in Tel Aviv, he'll deny any responsibility for taking no action now when he could've done something. We're talking an existential threat here, Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Would you trust Obama if you were Israel?

 

[Rocko]

Yeah way back!

 

[jillian]

he won't let iran develop nukes. truth is none of the middle eastern countries want iran to have nukes. no way the sunnis want the shi'a iranis to have that kind of power.

so my answer would be, when baby bush invaded iraq and destabilized the entire mid east (which is what left iran without opposition) israel waited;

when daddy bush asked israel to take SCUD missiles so as to keep his coalition from falling apart (because heaven knows, jews defending themselves would have made the whole Gulf I thing crumble)
israel waited.

i figure they'll wait til they can't... and they already have permission from the saudis to use saudi air space to hit iran if they need to.

so like anything else in the world, i'd suggest trust but verify.

 

[California Girl]

I'm sure that all Israelis will sleep a little better tonight knowing that.




































Sarcasm off.

 

[Katzndogz]

Netanyahu and the whole of Israel knows that obama is lying.

 

[jillian]

cause every other american president was soooooooooooo much better for israel

 

[Rocko]

cause every other american president was soooooooooooo much better for israel

agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

cause every other american president was soooooooooooo much better for israel

agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!

did i need to do the little /sarcasm thing so you could follow?

you might want to read my preceding posts.

thanks.

 

[Rocko]

cause every other american president was soooooooooooo much better for israel

agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!

did i need to do the little /sarcasm thing so you could follow?

you might want to read my preceding posts.

thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all

 

[California Girl]

cause every other american president was soooooooooooo much better for israel

I think your partisanship blinds you to the truth.

 

[konradv]

If you were Israel, would you believe it? Do we believe the Obama of the last 3 years that snubbed and dissed the Israeli PM, or the election year Obama who is now trying to make nice with everybody? If Obama gets re-elected, will he do anything different from what we've already seen?

I don't think so, I think he'll let Iran develop their nukes; and if they one day set one off in Tel Aviv, he'll deny any responsibility for taking no action now when he could've done something. We're talking an existential threat here, Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Would you trust Obama if you were Israel?

Every admistration has backed Israel since 1948. Nothing wrong with trying to come up with solutions that don't just lead to more war. Threats and territorial absolutes, don't help from either side.

 

[Katzndogz]

So far obama has betrayed every friendly government in the ME and some who weren't friendly but minded their own business. Anyone who trusts obama is a downright fool.

 

[WillowTree]

cause every other american president was soooooooooooo much better for israel

I think your partisanship blinds you to the truth.

Ignorance to a liberal is truly bliss.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sure that all Israelis will sleep a little better tonight knowing that.




































Sarcasm off.

I think Netanyahu told obie wan that Israel's fate was in Israeli hands.. Good for him.

 

[Wiseacre]

he won't let iran develop nukes. truth is none of the middle eastern countries want iran to have nukes. no way the sunnis want the shi'a iranis to have that kind of power.

so my answer would be, when baby bush invaded iraq and destabilized the entire mid east (which is what left iran without opposition) israel waited;

when daddy bush asked israel to take SCUD missiles so as to keep his coalition from falling apart (because heaven knows, jews defending themselves would have made the whole Gulf I thing crumble)
israel waited.

i figure they'll wait til they can't... and they already have permission from the saudis to use saudi air space to hit iran if they need to.

so like anything else in the world, i'd suggest trust but verify.

Not sure I'd agree that Bush43's war in Iraq was all that destabilizing for the region. And I'm not at all sure Obama will take military action against Iran; IMHO, that's what it's going to take, negotiations and sanctions will not work. I think today's meetings at the WH with Netanyahu are for the sole purpose of convincing him to wait until after the november election. I think Obama will threaten Netanyahu with a withdrawal of support if Israel does not hold off. I think he will promise cooperation if the Israelis will wait. The problem whether or not waiting much longer will be too late and Iran will have their nuke. And whether Israel will trust Obama to keep his word if they do wait. I wouldn't, don't think they will either after the way they've been treated and what the Obama admin's stance has been thus far.

 

[BlindBoo]

agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!

did i need to do the little /sarcasm thing so you could follow?

you might want to read my preceding posts.

thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg]Bush called for pre-1967 Israeli borders - YouTube[/ame]

Bush, Clinton endorsed pre-1967 borders for Palestinian state | Cynthia Tucker

Anything that President Obama proposes is automatically subjected to bristling condemnation, even if the GOP supported it three years ago. Given that, it’s no great surprise that Mitt Romney is claiming Obama “threw Israel under the bus” in his Mid-East speech yesterday, in which the president called for a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.
But just for the sake of adherence to facts, it’s worthwhile to check out recent history. As Atlantic Monthly’s Jeffrey Goldberg points out:

I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. (Emphasis added.) So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

Oh yeah and didn't President Bush(41) threaten Israel's funds if they didn't stop building settlements?????

 

[Rocko]

did i need to do the little /sarcasm thing so you could follow?

you might want to read my preceding posts.

thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg]Bush called for pre-1967 Israeli borders - YouTube[/ame]

Bush, Clinton endorsed pre-1967 borders for Palestinian state | Cynthia Tucker

Anything that President Obama proposes is automatically subjected to bristling condemnation, even if the GOP supported it three years ago. Given that, it’s no great surprise that Mitt Romney is claiming Obama “threw Israel under the bus” in his Mid-East speech yesterday, in which the president called for a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.
But just for the sake of adherence to facts, it’s worthwhile to check out recent history. As Atlantic Monthly’s Jeffrey Goldberg points out:

I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. (Emphasis added.) So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

Oh yeah and didn't President Bush(41) threaten Israel's funds if they didn't stop building settlements?????

It's true that the U.S.'s internal policy has long desired for Israel and Palestine to negtiate from the pre 67 borders, but Obama was the only president to say it to the public. Bush said the negociation should start at the pre 67 boarders with the arrangments to be sorted out between the parties. Obama basically said before arrangments are negociated Israel should go back to pre 67 boarders, and later retracted after feeling presure from donars and jewish groups.

The big deal is by going public he was the first president to put demands on Israel giving up land as a precondition to peace talks. He clearly thinks Israel is the bad guy hete.